06486-24 Abrar Islamic Foundation, the Dar Alhekma Trust, and Al-Shehabi v The Jewish Chronicle

Summary of Complaint

1. The Abrar Islamic Foundation - acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the Dar Alhekma Trust and Saeed Al-Shehabi – complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “British 'interfaith' charities unmasked as pro-terror hubs”, published on 9 August 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page and continued on pages four and five - alleged that the Abrar Islamic Foundation and Dar Alhekma Trust “openly support Iran-backed terror groups”. It said a “leading figure in both charities, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, was photographed in May taking part in an attack on Iranian dissidents in London which left one victim with serious spinal injuries.” It further said that one of the trustees of both charities, Saeed Al-Shehabi – a complainant - was “on the US ‘no fly’ list drawn up by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Centre and posted a gushing tribute to Iranian terror mastermind Qassem Soleimani after he was killed by a US drone strike, calling him a ‘noble and wise’ leader who ‘met his Lord covered in the blood of martyrdom’”. The article also said Dr Shehabi had “often given speeches and attended events at the Islamic Centre of England (ICE)” which is “currently being investigated by the Charity Commission for allegedly sponsoring extremism. In 2020 the Commission issued a ‘formal warning’ after it held a vigil for the IRGC’s terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani when he was killed in a US drone strike, while the ICE continues to host talks by Shehabi on its website.”

3. The article also reported that Dr Shehabi had “spoken at conferences in Iran alongside senior regime figures” and “spoke at an online event in 2021 that was entitled ‘Jerusalem is closer’, at which other speakers included envoys from Hamas and PIJ. Participants reportedly repeated the slogan ‘death to Israel’ and pledged to support the ‘axis of resistance’, the phrase coined by Iran to describe its web of terrorist proxies.”

4. The article then reported that “Shehabi’s response to the terrorist massacre of October 7 was swift and incendiary. On October 8 he posted on X: ‘Glory be to God… the oppressed of Palestine rose up and became master of the situation. Oh God, grant them victory.’ He also shared posts by others saying they had ‘received with great joy the news of the “Al-Aqsa flood” operation’ which had led to deaths of many of ‘the brutal Zionist enemy’”.

5. The article also said that “two weeks after the massacre, Dar Alhekma held an event to discuss the ‘Palestinian position on the Palestinian issue’. One of the speakers repeated [a named individual’s] often-stated claim that Israel is a ‘cancer’ that had to be ‘eradicated’”. It also reported: “The two charities [...] between them have bank accounts worth millions of pounds” and their “accounts show that Dar Alhekma has assets of around £4 million, and Abrar more than four times as much.”

6. The article included a statement from Dr Shehabi: “I am deeply saddened that charities which exist to improve the lives of their beneficiaries are being smeared. It is wholly false to suggest that the charities, or I, have supported any unlawful behaviour or activities, and we are confident that any enquiries into these matters would reach the same conclusion.” The article also included photographs of the charities’ headquarters.

7. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline: “UK ‘interfaith’ charities worth millions unmasked as hubs of support for terror groups”. This version of the article was published on 7 August 2024.

8. On 23 July – 17 days before the article’s publication - the publication contacted Dr Shehabi for his comment on the following claims:

• “[the trusts] have close links with Iran’s brutal regime and have been disseminating antisemitic, pro-terrorist propaganda”;

• “You were on the US ‘no fly' list drawn up by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Centre, which means you would have been unable to board a flight to, from or within the United States.”;

• “Your response to the terrorist massacre of October 7 was swift and incendiary. On October 8 you posted on X: 'Glory be to God… the oppressed of Palestine rose up and became master of the situation. Oh God, grant them victory’.”;

• “You also shared posts by others saying they had ‘received with great joy the news of the “Al-Aqsa flood” operation’ which had led to deaths of many of ‘the brutal Zionist enemy’.”

9. The publication also contacted the Dar Alhekma Trust on 23 July with questions for Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei. This email included the claim that he “often appears at the Dar Alhekma centre as a radood”.

10. The complainants responded on 29 July with an “off-the-record briefing” setting out their response to the various allegations. They also said that Dr Shehabi’s X bio said that retweets were not endorsements.

11. On 30 July, Dr Shehabi provided a statement for publication, which appeared in the article as set out above.

12. Following the article’s publication, the complainants contacted the newspaper on 13 August to outline various alleged inaccuracies in the article under complaint. The publication responded on 19 August, setting out that it did not accept a breach of the Code.

13. The complainants complained to IPSO on 9 December. They said it was inaccurate to refer to Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei as a leading figure in either charity. They explained he is a radood - a term used in the Shia faith to describe someone who sings ritual prayers but does not lead prayer. The complainants said he was engaged on a freelance, voluntary basis by both charities to perform this function at particular events and had only participated in an event at Abrar House once. They added he had never occupied a leadership role or spoken at any event. The complainants said it was damaging to the charities’ reputations to suggest someone facing allegations of criminality was a “leading figure”.

14. The complainants also said the article was inaccurate to claim the charities had bank accounts worth millions of pounds between them. They said this allegation was not put to the charities before publishing. Had it been, they said they would have pointed out the claim was inaccurate – they said the charities had bank accounts totalling hundreds of thousands, rather than millions, of pounds. They said the accounts for 2021 show total “cash reserves” of £1.7 million across the two charities: the complainant provided links to these accounts as they appeared on the Charity Commissions website, which showed that the ’cash at bank and in hand was £8,383’ for Dar Alhekma Trust and £1,692,602 for Abrar Islamic Foundation.

15. The complainants said it was inaccurate to suggest that either charity was a ‘pro-terror hub’. They said Dr Shehabi had informed the newspaper that he supported only lawful resistance to occupation, and was not supportive of any act that contravened international law or which would amount to terrorism - including action taken against civilians. It said Dr Shehabi’s position had not been published in the article.

16. The complainants also said the article was misleading to report that Dr Shehabi “spoke at an online event in 2021 that was entitled ‘Jerusalem is closer’, at which other speakers included envoys from Hamas and PIJ”. They said Dr Shehabi’s contribution was pre-recorded, and he did not attend the meeting online as suggested in the article. They said he had no knowledge of the other featured speakers and did not share their views. They added that they had reviewed a recording of the event and found no evidence to suggest that these views were expressed by any of the speakers, and that there was no audience for this event, as it was online and so viewers could not see one another or interact. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to claim a speaker at a Dar Alhekma Trust event in the weeks following 7 October 2023 claimed that Israel is a “cancer” that had to be “eradicated”. They said this was not put to Dr Shehabi or the Trust by the publication.

17. In response to the article’s claim that “Shehabi’s response to the terrorist massacre of October 7 was swift and incendiary”, the complainants said that Dr Shehabi’s X post, referenced in the article, expressed support for the oppressed and did not advocate for violence.

18. The complainants also said it was inaccurate to report that Dr Shehabi “shared posts by others saying they had “received with great joy the news of the ‘AlAqsa flood’ operation’ which had led to deaths of many of ‘the brutal Zionist enemy’”. The complainant said the publication could not demonstrate he had reposted this.

19. The complainants also said that the article had breached Clause 2 and Clause 3 by providing the addresses of the two charities’ headquarters, and publishing photographs of the buildings. They said this exposed the charities’ staff and service users to significant threats to their personal safety.

20. The publication said Mr Alwadaei was a prominent figure within the charities and featured heavily in the advertising for their events on social media. It provided several screenshots of Mr Alwadaei which had appeared on Dar Alhekma Trust’s social media. However, on 28 April - 28 days after it was made aware of the ISPO complaint - the publication offered to amend the online article’s reference to Mr Alwadaei as a “leading figure in both charities” so that it instead read "a prominent figure associated with both charities".

21. In regard to the charities’ financial accounts, the publication said the last filed accounts for Dar Alhekma Trust in the year 2021 showed £4,621,069 in fund balances, divided between a general fund and a land and buildings revaluation reserve. It said Abrar Islamic Foundation’s 2023 fund balances were £18,048,212. It said it was not necessary for it to seek comment on the publicly filed accounts, and readers had not been misled about the charities’ wealth. However, on 15 May, 45 days after the publication had been made aware of the IPSO complaint, it said it accepted the words 'bank accounts' should be removed, so the sentence would read: “and between them are worth millions of pounds.” However, it said it did not consider this a significant inaccuracy, given the charities had assets worth millions.

22. The publication provided a screenshot of Dr Shehabi’s X post on 8 October. It also provided the translation it had relied on in its reporting:

“Glory be to God, our tyrannical rulers do not feel secure even though they possess the latest American weapons: planes, missiles, and equipment. Instead of supporting their brothers in Palestine, they rushed to support the occupation, as the Khalifas and the rulers of the Emirates did. God turned their plot against them, and the oppressed Palestinian rose up and became the master of the situation. Oh God, grant them victory”.

23. The publication said it had flagged the reported posts with the complainant on 23 July and the complainant’s letter of 29 July did not dispute the translations or existence of the posts. It said it had an Arabic speaker check its translations, and it was satisfied they were correct.

24. Regarding the claim that a speaker at a Dar Alhekma Trust event claimed that Israel is a “cancer” that had to be “eradicated”, the publication provided a screenshot from the Dar Alhekma Trust website taken on 26 October 2023. It said this demonstrated a speaker has said: “Cancer is a prelude to attacking Islam therefore the necessity of eradicating it comes from the heart of the Islamic nation.” It said the page had been edited on 14 August 2024 so that this passage was removed.

25. In response to the website screenshot provided by the publication, the complainant said that the page was edited in November 2023 to correct what the speaker was quoted having said. It said the text quoted had been included erroneously, the publication had relied on outdated sources, and had failed to verify the accuracy of the screenshot. It noted the publication had not relied on footage of the event, but rather an article on Dar Alhekma Trust’s website which provided a summary of the event.

26. The complainants said the reference to “tyrannical rulers” in Dr Shehabi’s X post referred to the rulers of Bahrain and the UAE, not Israel, and it was entirely inaccurate for the newspaper to suggest otherwise.

27. The complainant said the publication had been unable to demonstrate Dr Shehabi had reposted a post by the Alwefaq Society, and therefore could not support the article’s claim that Dr Shehabi had shared posts saying they had “received with great joy the news of the ‘Al-Aqsa flood’ operation” which had led to deaths of many of “the brutal Zionist enemy”.

28. The publication subsequently provided a screenshot of a post Dr Shehabi had reposted on 8 October from the Alwefaq Society.

29. In response, the complainant said Dr Shehabi did not recall ever reposting it and could not locate it in his timeline or archives. It said the post contained a statement from political prisoners in the Jau Central prison in Bahrain expressing support for the Palestinian people, and that he would have reposted it in support of the prisoners.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

30. The Committee first considered whether it was inaccurate to claim that Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei was a leading figure in both charities. The Committee acknowledged that Mr Ahmed Alwadaei volunteered as a radood, and appeared on the charities’ social media accounts. However, given the serious claims regarding Mr Ahmed Alwadaei’s alleged criminal activity, the Committee was of the view that the publication should have taken more care over the status of his role within the charities, given it appeared he was not a ”leading” figure - he did not hold a leadership role in either charity. The publication had also not put this claim to the complainant prior to publication, to ensure that it was an accurate characterisation of Mr Alwadaei’s role. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

31. The Committee next considered whether this was significantly inaccurate and required correction. Although Mr Akwadaei was associated with the charities, reporting that he had a “leading” role overstated the extent of his involvement with the charities . The Committee considered that claiming he was a leading figure at the charities was significantly inaccurate given the serious nature of the allegation. While the newspaper had amended this reference, it had not offered a correction and therefore there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

32. The Committee next considered the accuracy of the claim that the charities “between them have bank accounts worth millions of pounds.” The newspaper had said it relied on publicly available records which showed combined assets worth millions of pounds. While the charities actually had cash reserves totalling around £1.7 million, according to their accounts, the Committee noted that the publication clearly had had sight of the charities’ financial records ahead of publication, and had taken them into account when preparing its reporting. While it was unfortunate that the article had initially used the phrase “bank accounts” instead of assets, the Committee did not consider that this represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article - particularly in circumstances where the charities had well over £1 million in cash reserves. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

33. The Committee next considered whether it was significantly inaccurate to refer to the charities “bank accounts” as totalling “millions” – when in fact, the correct position appeared that they had assets totalling this amount. The Committee noted that this formed a brief reference in an article which focused on the charities’ alleged links to terrorism. The complainant also accepted that between the two charities, they had a total of £1.7 million in cash reserves. As such, the Committee noted that the reference was not significantly inaccurate, where it was accepted the charities had combined bank accounts worth over one million pounds, and assets worth millions of pounds. The Committee did not consider this reference was significantly inaccurate and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

34. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to refer to the charities as “pro-terror hubs”. The Committee noted that the article reported that a trustee for both charities, Dr Shehabi “was on the US ‘no fly’ list drawn up by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Centre”, and had set out other alleged links between the charities and the Iranian government. The Committee noted that the publication also published Dr Shehabi’s response to this claim. Therefore, the Committee was content the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of this claim, by setting out the basis on which it was made and by approaching the complainants for comment ahead of publication, and had taken care to ensure the Dr Shehabi’s – made on behalf of the charities as well as himself - denial was set out. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

35. Given the article set out the basis on which this claim was made out, the Committee was also satisfied that – read in its entirety – the article was not significantly inaccurate, particularly in circumstances where the complainants denial of these links was clearly set out. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

36. The Committee considered the claim that Dr Shehabi “spoke at an online event in 2021 that was entitled ‘Jerusalem is closer’, at which other speakers included envoys from Hamas and PIJ”. He said this was inaccurate as his contribution was pre-recorded and he was unaware of the other speakers. The Committee noted that the article did not claim that Dr Shehabi had any knowledge of other speakers or the content of their speeches. It was also not in dispute that his contribution was included as part of the conference. The Committee therefore, did not consider it was inaccurate for the article to reference Dr Shehabi’s participation at the event, or to reference the other speakers. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

37. The Committee next considered the claim that “a speaker at a Dar Alhekma Trust’s event in the weeks following 7 October 2023 claimed that Israel is a ‘cancer’ that had to be ‘eradicated’”. The Committee noted that the Dar Alhekma’s Trust’s website summarised the event by stating that a named speaker had said: “Cancer is a prelude to attacking Islam therefore the necessity of eradicating it comes from the heart of the Islamic nation.” The complainants said that the webpage had since been edited to remove this reference, and that this reference was inaccurate. However, where this had appeared on the complainant’s website, the publication was entitled to rely on this summary, and as such there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

38. The Committee next turned to the social media posts which the article claimed Dr Shehabi had posted and reposted. The article said that “Shehabi’s response to the terrorist massacre of October 7 was swift and incendiary. On October 8 he posted on X: ‘Glory be to God… the oppressed of Palestine rose up and became master of the situation. Oh God, grant them victory.’” The publication had provided the post in question as well as a translation, which tallied with what the article reported. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the article accurately reported on the contents of the social media post, and further noted that the complainant did not dispute the accuracy of the translation.

39. The Committee further noted that the post was published on 8 October, one day after the events of 7 October, which supported the article’s claim that this was a response to the “terrorist massacre”. The publication had put the article’s position about Dr Shehabi’s X posts to him ahead of the article’s publication, and he had simply said X reposts were not endorsements. The Committee therefore considered that it was not inaccurate to claim his response to the events of 7 October were “swift and incendiary”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

40. The complainant had initially disputed that Dr Shehabi had shared a post saying an organisation had “received with great joy the news of the ‘AlAqsa flood’ operation” which had led to deaths of many of ‘the brutal Zionist enemy’”. However, the publication provided a screenshot of the post which demonstrated Dr Shehabi had reposted it. For this reason, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to claim “He also shared posts by others saying they had ‘received with great joy the news of the “Al-Aqsa flood” operation’ which had led to deaths of many of ‘the brutal Zionist enemy’”. Regardless of Dr Shehabi’s motivations for re-posting the message, the publication had been able to demonstrate that he had - and the article was therefore entitled to report this.

41. Subsequently, the complainant said this reference to the re-post omitted vital context. Newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish provided this does not breach the Code. The Committee noted omitting further context of his repost did not render the article inaccurate, given it was not in dispute the complainant had reposted the post in question. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

42. Finally, the Committee turned to the complaint under Clause 2 and Clause 3 that publication of photographs of the headquarters of the charities would put their staff and service users at risks. The Committee noted that the complainant had not been authorised by individual members of staff and service users to take forward a complaint on their behalf. As such, the Committee declined to consider this aspect of the complaint, given the terms of Clause 2 and Clause 3 protect the rights of specific individuals, as opposed to corporate entities, charities, and buildings.

Conclusions

43. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

44. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

45. The article breached the Code by claiming Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei was a leading figure in both charities. This was significantly inaccurate as he was employed as a radood on a freelance basis and did not occupy any leadership role. However, the Committee noted that this claim formed a brief reference in the article, and that the publication had offered to amend this reference. Further, while Mr Ahmed Alwadaei was not a “leading figure”, he did have some involvement with both charities. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that the publication of a correction was the appropriate remedy.

46. The correction should acknowledge the article inaccurately claimed Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei was a leading figure in both charities. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that he has never occupied a leadership role, and that he actually acted as a radood on a freelance basis.

47. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column. As the publication had offered to amend the article, the correction should appear as a footnote. The Committee considered this to be a duly prominent location, given the inaccurate information appeared only in the text of the article, and the publication had agreed to amend the article to remove the inaccurate information.

48. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 09/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/10/2025